Big Drop in T going from IM to Sub-Q. Why?

[HealthMan]

If you go shallow IM in the outside thigh with a 1/2 inch insulin pin do you still need to aspirate? Surely there ar blood vessels I/2 inch deep?

I inject on the vastus lateralis for the last couple years with a 1/2 inch insulin needle and never aspirate

 

[CoastWatcher]

I inject on the vastus lateralis for the last couple years with a 1/2 inch insulin needle and never aspirate

I’ve done the same thing, as part of my daily injection protocol, for nearly five years.

 

[SkyWarn]

I’ve done the same thing, as part of my daily injection protocol, for nearly five years.

I suppose even if your not lean, 1/2 inch should get you into the muscle. And if it doesn't, it just goes into the fat

 

[Cataceous]

I do have the grounds Cataceous. I consistently got very different results from IM and Subq but i am not going to keep arguing with you because you are blind and only have eyes to one badly designed study and ignore all the real world data. Again. Lets agree to disagree. It is alright.

For the folks in this forum that see very different testosterone levels or feel different injecting IM vs Subq know it happens to a lot of people. Just stick to the method that works best for you

Not the strongest arguments: an ad hominem attack on my figurative vision, and calling a study "badly designed" because it contradicts the few random lab tests on which you base some flawed assumptions. As a reminder, this particular study was a Phase II clinical trial that had to pass muster with an FDA that's been skeptical of testosterone-based products.

Then there's the mischaracterization of what I said in order to create a straw man. I did not say that IM and SQ create identical serum testosterone curves, nor did I say that subjective results would be the same. The evidence suggests that generally IM creates higher peaks and lower troughs in both testosterone and estradiol. It's quite plausible that this can result in subjective differences.

 

[HealthMan]

Not the strongest arguments: an ad hominem attack on my figurative vision, and calling a study "badly designed" because it contradicts the few random lab tests on which you base some flawed assumptions. As a reminder, this particular study was a Phase II clinical trial that had to pass muster with an FDA that's been skeptical of testosterone-based products.

Then there's the mischaracterization of what I said in order to create a straw man. I did not say that IM and SQ create identical serum testosterone curves, nor did I say that subjective results would be the same. The evidence suggests that generally IM creates higher peaks and lower troughs in both testosterone and estradiol. It's quite plausible that this can result in subjective differences.

I already made my case on that other thread in why this study is flawed in my opinion (just because it was submitted to the FDA doesn’t make it bullet proof. Yes it shows that both methods produce equivalent results on average. But on average doesn’t give a great picture for single individuals). Just as an example big pharma producers of depot testosterone suggest once every 2 weeks injection based on their great clinical studies. I dont think anyone here including yourself agrees with that. All this study shows is that for a limited number of individuals using different dosages of testosterone and assuming linearity... on average IM vs Subq are equivalent. But again it is not worth it dissecting things because you will disagree anyways. A study with a greater sample, using same dosage and injection frequency and comparing testosterone levels for each individual separately would be a great one. Then you could isolate other variables like SHBG for instance and get a much more meaningful results.
Also my conclusion is based on a sample much greater than the aforementioned study.
If you don’t remember what you said and is now trying to change what you wrote thats fine. Like I said lets agree to disagree. People are entitled to have different opinions. I respect yours and you should do the same. Case closed.

 

[Cataceous]

... Then you could isolate other variables like SHBG for instance and get a much more meaningful results.
....

Maybe we can find something new and different to disagree on. Between high and low SHBG, what differences in serum testosterone are you expecting?

 

[CoastWatcher]

I suppose even if your not lean, 1/2 inch should get you into the muscle. And if it doesn't, it just goes into the fat

I'm lean and my injections tend to be shallow IM or subQ.

 

[fifty]

And remember if you want to go deeper with 1/2” just push harder. And if you want to go shallower with 1.5” just put it halfway in.

 

[lemonflavor]

What's the difference in results between shallow IM and 'regular' IM?

 

[Vince Carter]

What's the difference in results between shallow IM and 'regular' IM?

Part of this whole very flawed discussion is right there for you guys....there's not one part of this that is linear in any way that you can derive an answer from a question such as his here.
Its entirely subjective and even when one guy does carry through with some well thought out testing, its not clinical and undoubtedly has variables such that it's all for naught and his results are just in a very isolated vacuum that is rife to be picked apart in the simplest ways.

 

[lemonflavor]

Well I asked the question wrong then. SORRY I'm such a dunce and not as smart as you. What would be the possible differences in any way between shallow IM and regular? Doesn't it still go into muscle? How can you tell if it's shallow?

Edit: I wasn't asking for linear differences in lab results, just possible differences in results between one or the other. Trying to use exactly the right words here.

 

[SkyWarn]

This week I started doing what I believe is "shallow im" in the thigh using a 1/2 inch insulin syringe. I say this with a question mark because I am not sure if I am getting past the fat and actually in the muscle. I do push it in a little so as to dimple the skin, and I try to flex the muscle to bring it closer to the surface. Im not lean. We will see what the labs say in a few weeks.
Buut I love the small needles, no pain and no blood. And I do aspirate just to be safe.

 

[antelopers]

Well I asked the question wrong then. SORRY I'm such a dunce and not as smart as you. What would be the possible differences in any way between shallow IM and regular? Doesn't it still go into muscle? How can you tell if it's shallow?

Edit: I wasn't asking for linear differences in lab results, just possible differences in results between one or the other. Trying to use exactly the right words here.

Calm down man, he didn't attack you at all.

People just use the term shallow IM to say that they're using as small of a needle as possible, while still injecting into muscle tissue and not into fat. Probably doesn't affect lab results as long as it gets into the muscle. The advantage is that you can use smaller needles and theoretically reduce scar tissue.

 

[lemonflavor]

Thanks antelopers. Sorry if I over-reacted. I didn't see any other way to read it, not that it should matter.

 

[antelopers]

Thanks antelopers. Sorry if I over-reacted. I didn't see any other way to read it, not that it should matter.

It's tough to read people's tones over the internet sometimes. One of the drawbacks of this form of communication. Anyway shallow IM vs deep IM is really just a discussion of needle size and minimizing injection discomfort and possibly scar tissue.